This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the FAQ and RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate and remove the ads - it's free!

Re: Obama's War Authorization Limits Ground Forces

Where are the war protesters? Where is the marches on washington? Has anything actually changed since bush? Seems we still be fighting endlessly.

What is the mission?

What is the purpose? [/FONT][/COLOR]

Not to push a conspiracy, but now that both the House and the Senate are in Republican hands, President Obama wants them to authorize use of force, should he choose to exercise it, which I doubt very much he will/would. Funny how he wasn't interested in this contingency when Democrats were in charge of the Senate and vulnerable in the run up to the 2014 mid-terms.

Considering that a large chunk of the American public, unlike in Canada and some other countries, aren't too happy about the escalation in the fight against ISIS, this strikes me as an attempt to get Republicans on record one way or the other, particularly those in Congress who are contemplating Presidential ambitions.

"Liberals claim to want to give a hearing to other views, but then are shocked and offended to discover that there are other views." William F. Buckley Jr.

Re: Obama's War Authorization Limits Ground Forces

Originally Posted by CanadaJohn

Not to push a conspiracy, but now that both the House and the Senate are in Republican hands, President Obama wants them to authorize use of force, should he choose to exercise it, which I doubt very much he will/would. Funny how he wasn't interested in this contingency when Democrats were in charge of the Senate and vulnerable in the run up to the 2014 mid-terms.

Considering that a large chunk of the American public, unlike in Canada and some other countries, aren't too happy about the escalation in the fight against ISIS, this strikes me as an attempt to get Republicans on record one way or the other, particularly those in Congress who are contemplating Presidential ambitions.

Well, sort of. Have to remember that this the 'Always Mr. Politics above reality' president.
Fact of the matter is that Obama already has authorization. He does not need this one.

The authorization for use of military force, the first since the 2002 document authorizing the Iraq War, calls for the systematic destruction of the Islamic State and any person or group associated with it.

The authorization would last through 2018, giving the U.S. and its allies three years to dismantle the radical terrorist organization, though the time frame could be extended.
It contains no geographic boundaries, allowing the president to dispatch U.S. planes or special forces to every corner of the globe to hunt down Islamic State fighters.

His goal is setting up a congressional / Republican scape goat should it go wrong, 'it was the Republican controlled congress that authorized it', yet he and his advisers are meddling in the military's sandbox as to operations in the theater, while at the same time tying the hands of the following president, likely to be a Republican, about the use of ground troops.

President Barack Obama is letting White House officials dictate decisions on how the U.S. will proceed in major foreign policy and military initiatives, Lt. Gen. Jerry Boykin
. . . .
Specifically, Boykin said Obama is allowing National Security Adviser Susan Rice to call the shots in decisions on the battle against the Islamic State (ISIS)
"people from the White House are micromanaging the tactical situation [against ISIS] on a daily and weekly basis."

Rice had "no statutory authority to give the secretary of defense or any of the general officers or the leadership of the military advice or directives," Boykin said, adding that it was believed Jarrett was influencing the Iran negotiations.
. . .
"They should complain. When the national security adviser is picking up the phone and calling field commanders, as this one is reported to be doing, then the professional leadership in our military should be balking and pushing back," he said.

Remember the last time that a White House dictated to military leaders which targets and when?
Yeah, that's right. It was the Democratically controlled LBJ White House, and look where that ended up.

The authorization request it not being well received by either party in congress.

“The president should be asking for an authorization that would not impose any artificial and any unnecessary limitations such as those based on time, geography and type of force that could interfere with our strategic objectives of defeating the Islamic State,” Mr. Hatch said Wednesday during a radio interview, The Hill reported. “What he’s doing is tying his own hands, and stupidly tying his own hands. I mean my goodness, talk about telegraphing weakness. That’s what he’s doing,” he added.

“I oppose sending U.S. ground troops into combat in another bloody war in the Middle East,” Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., said Wednesday. “I therefore cannot support the resolution in its current form without clearer limitations on the role of U.S. combat troops.”
Sanders is among many Democrats who are skeptical of the terms of the authorization for the use of military force (AUMF), which would approve "limited use of the United States Armed Forces against the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant." That group now controls substantial land areas in Iraq and Syria and has been very successful in attracting jihadist volunteers from countries around the world, including the United States.

Disinformation campaign? The Russian collusion meme pushed by the 'news' media, behaving as a political propaganda organ, hell bent to destroy a legitimately elected president to implement his agenda per the votes of the same electorate. Reference The Big Lie Reference Goebbels

Re: Obama's War Authorization Limits Ground Forces

Telegraphing weakness, and Sen. Bernie Sanders would just love to telegraph even greater weakness. Brilliant leaders these guys.

Disinformation campaign? The Russian collusion meme pushed by the 'news' media, behaving as a political propaganda organ, hell bent to destroy a legitimately elected president to implement his agenda per the votes of the same electorate. Reference The Big Lie Reference Goebbels

Re: Obama's War Authorization Limits Ground Forces

Things he feels won't be politically damaging to him: "I can take great unilateral executive action"

Things he feels might be politically damaging to him: "I would like to work with congress on this issue"

At least we may begin to see an apparent trend emerge for how things will function over the next 2 years. Bill Clinton this guy ain't.

As to the specifics of it. On one hand, I get the notion of "sunk costs". Even if see it as an extension of what's been happening since 2003 (and how can it be, we were told that Iraq and Afghanistan were "over" and Al-Qaeda was on the run), the question does come down to whether or not it's simply time to cut losses. On the flip side, I do also get the notion of "you broke it, you buy it" and the idea that we need to see the issue through or else it can still destabilize, or turn more antagonistic, a region with significant economic implications.

However, my biggest issue with it is that it's a half measure.

When it comes to fighting...be it one on one or war...I don't like half measures. I don't like going at it half assed. If you're not willing to go all out in a fight then you shouldn't be in that fight, period. That doesn't mean you have to go all out in every fight, but you absolutely mentally need to be willing and able to do so. Anything less and you subject yourself to needless and pointless risk.

If you want authorization to take military action against ISIS, then ask for it across the board. Doesn't mean you have to use it all, but have it as an option on the table. Otherwise it's a half-measure that is more likely going to simply complicate and prolong a positive solution, if it doesn't just fail entirely.

Re: Obama's War Authorization Limits Ground Forces

Things he feels won't be politically damaging to him: "I can take great unilateral executive action"

Things he feels might be politically damaging to him: "I would like to work with congress on this issue"

At least we may begin to see an apparent trend emerge for how things will function over the next 2 years. Bill Clinton this guy ain't.

As to the specifics of it. On one hand, I get the notion of "sunk costs". Even if see it as an extension of what's been happening since 2003 (and how can it be, we were told that Iraq and Afghanistan were "over" and Al-Qaeda was on the run), the question does come down to whether or not it's simply time to cut losses. On the flip side, I do also get the notion of "you broke it, you buy it" and the idea that we need to see the issue through or else it can still destabilize, or turn more antagonistic, a region with significant economic implications.

However, my biggest issue with it is that it's a half measure.

When it comes to fighting...be it one on one or war...I don't like half measures. I don't like going at it half assed. If you're not willing to go all out in a fight then you shouldn't be in that fight, period. That doesn't mean you have to go all out in every fight, but you absolutely mentally need to be willing and able to do so. Anything less and you subject yourself to needless and pointless risk.

If you want authorization to take military action against ISIS, then ask for it across the board. Doesn't mean you have to use it all, but have it as an option on the table. Otherwise it's a half-measure that is more likely going to simply complicate and prolong a positive solution, if it doesn't just fail entirely.

I suspect that this will lead to the same types of failures of LBJ's White House interference during Viet Nam. No telling how many more US service personnel will be killed and maimed and native collateral damage this method of operation will cause. Stupid, stupid stupid. Repeating expensive mistakes of the past. All these 'smart guys' ought to know better than this.

Sigh. When leaders and advisers are blinded by arrogance and ideology.

Disinformation campaign? The Russian collusion meme pushed by the 'news' media, behaving as a political propaganda organ, hell bent to destroy a legitimately elected president to implement his agenda per the votes of the same electorate. Reference The Big Lie Reference Goebbels

Re: Obama's War Authorization Limits Ground Forces

Like I said much earlier, Obama wasn't going to do anything until public pressure mounted and even then he'd try to sound tough but he won't be.
Yes Yes Yes ... anybody who watches the guy realized that.
But there you go anyway.
The man is driven by ideology and given his background no one should have expected anything else.

Re: Obama's War Authorization Limits Ground Forces

Things he feels won't be politically damaging to him: "I can take great unilateral executive action"

Things he feels might be politically damaging to him: "I would like to work with congress on this issue"

At least we may begin to see an apparent trend emerge for how things will function over the next 2 years. Bill Clinton this guy ain't.

As to the specifics of it. On one hand, I get the notion of "sunk costs". Even if see it as an extension of what's been happening since 2003 (and how can it be, we were told that Iraq and Afghanistan were "over" and Al-Qaeda was on the run), the question does come down to whether or not it's simply time to cut losses. On the flip side, I do also get the notion of "you broke it, you buy it" and the idea that we need to see the issue through or else it can still destabilize, or turn more antagonistic, a region with significant economic implications.

However, my biggest issue with it is that it's a half measure.

When it comes to fighting...be it one on one or war...I don't like half measures. I don't like going at it half assed. If you're not willing to go all out in a fight then you shouldn't be in that fight, period. That doesn't mean you have to go all out in every fight, but you absolutely mentally need to be willing and able to do so. Anything less and you subject yourself to needless and pointless risk.

If you want authorization to take military action against ISIS, then ask for it across the board. Doesn't mean you have to use it all, but have it as an option on the table. Otherwise it's a half-measure that is more likely going to simply complicate and prolong a positive solution, if it doesn't just fail entirely.

You touch on something. our political system is not optimal for drawn out wars. In this day and age with war coming to our tv's on a daily basis, people are war weary in under 8 years, which means that if we need to have a 12 year war for whatever reason, it cant happen, because after the 8 years, the next president is usually swept in on ending it.

and we end up with headless half assed missions with no direction or winning strategy

Re: Obama's War Authorization Limits Ground Forces

Originally Posted by ReverendHellh0und

You touch on something. our political system is not optimal for drawn out wars. In this day and age with war coming to our tv's on a daily basis, people are war weary in under 8 years, which means that if we need to have a 12 year war for whatever reason, it cant happen, because after the 8 years, the next president is usually swept in on ending it.

and we end up with headless half assed missions with no direction or winning strategy

(the fact that it's not ended is another discussion)

Agreed.

So all the more reason to make it fast, with overwhelming force, drive to victory in the shortest amount of time possible, and then leave just as quickly as we came.

Kinda like when Bush Sr. kicked Iraqis out of Kuwait. Bad part is that not all problems on the world's stage had be effectively handled this way, or am I wrong about that? What do you think?

Disinformation campaign? The Russian collusion meme pushed by the 'news' media, behaving as a political propaganda organ, hell bent to destroy a legitimately elected president to implement his agenda per the votes of the same electorate. Reference The Big Lie Reference Goebbels

Re: Obama's War Authorization Limits Ground Forces

One day he declares the whole terrorism thing is overblown and a couple of days later he says he wants to declare war on it.
Usually he manages to bundle his "this but also that"s into one set of sentences so Josh can reference whichever he needs to.
ex: video & act of terror